Kelly Loeffler Senator?

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by Nemo, Nov 29, 2019.

  1. OWM

    OWM Well-Known Member

    3,230
    849
    113
    Great way to generate revenue for GCO. Bye.
     

  2. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,500
    538
    113
    And its volunteer staff?
     
  3. AtlPhilip

    AtlPhilip Proud GCO member.

    7,950
    104
    63
    I'm confused how bickering on forum unrelated to GCO generates revenue for GCO??

    And even if it were making money for GCO, Georgia Carry is all volunteer. Which means that any revenue it raised would be spent fighting for YOUR gun rights.
     
    tmoore912, Adam5 and ICP_Juggalo like this.
  4. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Professional Troll

    2,068
    54
    48
    When you’re so petty with your political beliefs that you lash out at the very people trying to protect you from the very criminals you elect to steal your rights. :lol::roll:
     
  5. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    I don't believe anyone on this forum is cheering this on. If you think otherwise, say so. I'd like to see the ATF's actions overruled and in general reigned in. But you're right. I'm sure there's some duck killers who don't understand why you'd need a bump stock.
     
  6. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    Yeah. I got that. :cheers:
     
  7. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    I considered the alternative that we faced in 2016. And under the conditions Trump was allowed to work under for the past four years I can accept those breadcrumbs as being better than nothing.
     
  8. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    Damned if I know if the number is accurate! But no, they aren't prohibited any longer. Having a third party handle your finances does not mean you're mentally defective, which is what Obama's change did.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40/

     
  9. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    Yes. Isn't politics wonderful?
     
  10. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    He issued orders to his Defense Secretary to pull all our troops out of Afghanistan by the end of this year. His SecDef as well as his SecState promptly explained to the media that he didn't really mean that. Yes, politics again. His "team" is full of people that won't implement his plans. Why doesn't he just get rid of them? Maybe he's tried and the replacement choices have just been more of the same?
     
  11. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    Choices and politics again. He's playing the hand he's been given. I don't believe he has much choice but to deal with what the establishment tells him. If he wants to be truly effective in the next term he has to choose his support from outside the establishment.
     
  12. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,500
    538
    113
    Actually, Obama s change just started reporting to NICS. Current law already said (and still says) that if a government agency (like SSA) determines you can't handle your own affairs, you are prohibited from possessing a firearm. Whether it's reported to NICS or not makes no difference.
     
  13. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,584
    700
    113
    QUOTE from new law Congress passed about Social Security disability payees:

    This joint resolution nullifies the “Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007” rule finalized by the Social Security Administration on December 19, 2016"

    The problem with the above language is that the prohibition on mentally defective persons having guns or ammo comes not from the above referenced law in 2007, but rather the gun control act of 1968 itself.
    Amending the GCA '68 is how you'd fix the problem.
     
  14. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,500
    538
    113
    Exactly
     
  15. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    So you (and John) are saying that just because I don't want to be involved in handling my monthly beneficiary check for whatever reason (I don't like numbers, I can't add, I just don't want to be bothered, etc, etc) but I am otherwise "normal" (physically, mentally, emotionally) I'm going to be deemed mentally defective? Isn't that stretching the definition of "mentally defective" beyond the bounds of reasonableness? It doesn't bother you that some bureaucrat has the ability to do that? You're OK with that?

    I guess the issue is how is "mentally defective" defined. I can't find anything like that here.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

     
  16. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,500
    538
    113
    No. I'm saying that if the SSA makes that determination, then are mentally defective. If you decide that as a matter of personal convenience, that's different.
    Obviously to you it is.
    You're changing the parameters. In your hypothetical, you decide for yourself to hire a bookkeeper. Now you're saying a bureaucrat can do it. Those aren't the same. But, yes, if the SSA determines that you cannot manage your own affairs because of some kind of mental impairment, then you are a mental defective as a matter of federal law. I'm not opining of the wisdom of the law. Just reporting it. The issue in this thread is that whether the defect is reported to NICS does not drive whether the prohibition is in effect.

    Again, I'm not passing judgment, just reporting what the current state of the law is (and has been for quite a while).

    I think you probably should check out the federal regulation defining "adjudicated as a mental defective," which provides in part, "A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person , as a result of ... mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease ... lacks the the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." 27 C.F.R. 478.11. A person who fits that definition is prohibited as a matter of federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition (10 year felony). This is true regardless of whether the situation is reported to NICS or not.
     
  17. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,787
    1,775
    113
    In a lot of marriages (or partnerships), the finances might be handled by just one of the two. That doesn't necessarily make the other person mentally ill, incompetent or anything else. Except in the eyes of a bureaucrat apparently. I recall my parents doing that.
     
  18. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,500
    538
    113
    You continue to conflate a voluntary act with a governmental action. Are you wilfully ignoring the difference?
     
  19. phantoms

    phantoms Senior Mumbler

    6,236
    196
    63
    Look what came in the mail today.

    [​IMG]
     
    hammerg26 likes this.